May 6

Information Literacy and My Role at School

Reflect on what you can take from the discussion of information literacy to your IL role in school.

First and foremost, after reading through the discussions around Information Literacy (IL) in the course material, it has become clear and obvious that no clear definition of IL exists and that our own notions of the concept will ultimately affect how we plan for and teach it (Bruce, Edwards & Lupton, 2006, p. 2).

Bruce, Edwards and Lupton (2006, p. 3) outline six different frames through which IL can be viewed: content, competency, learning to learn, relational, social impact, and personal relevance. Each frame has a different view of IL, view of information, curriculum focus, view of teaching and learning, view of content, and view of assessment (Bruce, Edwards & Lupton, 2006, pp. 4-5).

I think that as I have more experience in library and information literacy teaching, my position amongst the frames will become clearer. At this stage, I think I see IL through both the competency and learning to learn frames, as my previous school adopted a series of experiences for students that focussed on learning to learn, which was important for students in our low socio-economic area. The competency frame seems simple, and perhaps the easiest to apply to the competency-based assessment and reporting that is so common in schools at which I have worked.

I can certainly see the distinction between the behaviourist and sociocultural approaches to IL, as well as the importance of placing IL into context. Kutner & Armstrong (2012, p. 25) note that a skills-based approach alone is not enough to facilitate deep IL learning. As such, as I work towards employment in a school or public library, I will need to implement a balanced mixture of both approaches.

References

Bruce, C., Edwards, S., & Lupton, M. (2006). Six frames for information literacy education: A conceptual framework for interpreting the relationships between theory and practice. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(1), 1-18. doi: 10.11120/ital.2006.05010002

Kutner, L., & Armstrong, A. (2012). Rethinking information literacy in a globalised world. Communications in Information Literacy, 6(1), 24-33. doi: 10.15760/comminfolit.2012.6.1.115

Category: ETL401 Intro to Teacher Librarianship | LEAVE A COMMENT
May 4

Information Literacy Reflection

Reading through today’s course material was like walking through thick snow. But one sentence, in one of the readings, caught my attention and made it all a bit clearer.

By engaging with this modality of information, novices learn to act as practitioners, but they cannot become practitioners because they are removed from the reflexive and reflective embodied experiences and tensions arising from practice.”

– Lloyd, 2007, “Learning to act as a practitioner”

Lloyd’s article was about switching from the idea of Information Literacy (IL) as a set of skills and behaviours, to sociocultural construction of information and meaning, and whole body engagement with a range of modes. Context, Lloyd argues, is fundamental to what is learnt and how it is learnt.

I can relate to the quote above as I look back on my professional teaching practicum. As a student teacher, I was only acting like a real teacher, and never truly became a teacher until I experienced the real thing. Similarly, our students can never truly become information literate by simply ticking off a set of skills and behaviours. They must be fully immersed in authentic information literacy learning, in a variety of contexts, to become information “practitioners”.

Reference

Lloyd, A. (2007). Recasting information literacy as sociocultural practice: Implications for library and information science researchers. Information Research, 12(4). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis34.html

Category: ETL401 Intro to Teacher Librarianship | LEAVE A COMMENT